Listen to the episode:
Welcome to today’s What is The Future For Cities podcast and its Research episode; my name is Fanni, and today I will introduce a research article by summarising it. The episode really is just a short summary of the original article, and, in case it is interesting enough, I would encourage everyone to check out the whole article.
So, this research episode is working with a 2020 article written and signed by scientists from all around the world about the climate emergency. Since this podcast investigates different futures for the cities, I thought it would be beneficial to look at why we need to talk about a change in our environmental management. This article gives an insight into the scientific community’s worries and comprehensive solutions to the climate emergency.
Our summary today works with the article titled World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency from 2020 by William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, and William R. Moomaw and signed by 11258 scientists from 153 countries. The article was published in the BioScience journal by the American Institute of Biological Sciences to discuss the signs of the climate emergency and the potential steps to tackle those.
The ‘why’ needs a little more explanation before we jump into the article. More than half of humanity lives in cities since 2018, and this is projected to grow even further. Cities are usually the places where resources go in, cities, people, and industry uses the resources, and then waste goes out from cities. With the concentration of people, cities are known to consume at least 60% of the Earth’s resources, to emit a minimum of 70% of greenhouse gases, and to produce circa 70% of the global waste, according to the United Nations and the ISO. With these numbers, cities are contributing to the climate emergency in a less than positive way. Thus, we arrived at the current article.
The article starts with the scientists’ moral obligation to inform humanity of any possible danger and tell it like it is. So they said: the planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. Although this problem was recognised in 1979 with the Geneva Conference and subsequent steps, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, the greenhouse gas emissions are still rising with devastating effect on the Earth’s climate. To avoid insufferable consequences, there is a need for more endeavours conserving our biosphere.
The writers highlighted that the usual indicator, the global surface temperature, is an inadequate measurement of the whole breadth of the problems and dangers. Therefore, they presented vital graphical signs of climate change over the last 40 years and the current climatic impacts. They also noted the link between excessive consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, they also exhibited general patterns on a global scale intending to be practical for all.
According to them, there are profoundly troubling signs from human activities, such as population increase in human and livestock, meat production and consumption, tree cover loss, CO2 emissions. The encouraging signs include decreased global fertility, decelerated forest loss, renewable energy use, and carbon pricing. But these latter ones do not seem to be enough. They were especially troubled by the vital signs of climatic impacts as the greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase as the global surface temperature rises with ice caps disappearing. This does not only affect the dryland but the oceans as well, as their temperatures are also rising; thus, climate change is predicted to affect significantly marine, freshwater and terrestrial lives at the same time. These, all combined, highlight the urgent need for action.
Regardless of the 40 years of signs and research and conferences, the business had been conducted as usual, in their opinion. The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected, more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity. They highlighted the especially worrisome parts: the potentially irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks, potentially leading to a catastrophic ‘hothouse Earth’. This could cause significant disruptions in ecosystems, society, economics, even making parts of Earth potentially uninhabitable.
Setting aside the doomsday feeling, they also suggested changes to implement concerning economic and population growth being the most important drivers of CO2 emissions. They suggested interrelated steps in six critical areas that all can take to lessen the effects of climate change. And, of course, these steps are not the only ones possible or actionable, but these are important steps, nonetheless.
Regarding energy, they encouraged energy efficiency and conservation practices and use of low-carbon renewables instead of fossil fuels. The remaining stocks of fossil fuels should remain in the ground, and negative emissions, such as carbon extraction and capture from air, could enhance the natural systems. Here, they highlighted that collaboration is crucial: wealthier countries should support poorer nations to turn away from fossil fuels. The energy segment could be supported by the notion of eliminating subsidies of fossil fuels and escalating carbon prices.
Concerning short-lived pollutants, such as methane and black carbon, their emissions need to be promptly reduced. This could help to reduce the short-term warming trend by 50% over the next few decades, plus increase crop yields due to reduced air pollution.
Talking about nature, they urged to protect and restore Earth’s ecosystems, such as coral reefs, forests, wetlands, because they contribute significantly to the subtraction of the atmospheric CO2. Marine and terrestrial plants play crucial roles in carbon and nutrient cycling and storages, so there is a strong need to protect the remaining areas, especially those with high carbon stores. Also, increasing forestation where appropriate is also encouraged. Only with this step, third of the emission reductions needed by 2030 for the Paris Agreement can be achieved.
They propagated eating mainly plant-based foods and reducing animal product consumption. This step can improve human health and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, and free up croplands for growing food and places for the steps concerning nature mentioned before. Additionally, food waste around the world must be drastically reduced.
Coming to the economy, the materials’ excessive extraction and ecosystems’ overexploitation driven by economic growth must be changed for the sake of long-term sustainability of the biosphere. A carbon-free economy can address human dependence on the biosphere and guide policies for financial and economic decisions. The shift from GDP growth to sustaining ecosystems and human wellbeing is much needed.
Finally, according to them, the population must be stabilised or even gradually reduced with a framework ensuring social integrity. There are proven and effective policies strengthening human rights and lessening population growth’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies include family-planning services, full gender equity, and education.
To tackle the problems requires transformations in societal functions and interactions with natural ecosystems. What seems to be encouraging is the attention this global challenge received all over the world. As the Alliance of World Scientists, the authors stand ready to help the decision-making transition towards a more sustainable and equitable future. The steps and changes may be complicated, but they promise greater human wellbeing than the business-as-usual approach. They believed that all of humanity would respond to a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.
As the most important things, I would like to highlight 3 aspects: 1. The challenges and the solutions are interrelated across the different areas, fields of business, and disciplines. 2. The steps suggested are not for only the governments but also for individuals who want to tackle these problems. 3. Unless we do something, there will be doomsday like in the first part of the article, and our home could be potentially lost for inhabitation – which would be a real bummer for our descendants.
Additionally, it would be great to talk about the following questions: 1. How did COVID change this scenario? Are there positive signs of change, or is it possible that we go back to doing business-as-usual after such an earth-shattering experience? Even more, how can we utilise the lived experiences the best? 2. What can you personally do based on the steps the scientists proposed for a better, sustainable future?
What was the most interesting part for you? What questions did arise for you? Do you have any follow up questions? Let me know on Twitter @WTF4Cities or on the website where the transcripts and show notes are available! I hope this was an interesting research for you as well, and thanks for tuning in!
What is The Future for Cities? Podcast 
Leave a comment